View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Gail Robortaccio, Peter Giardina, Robert Kurtz, Joyce Dargel, Edward Data, John Wetzel.  Sebastian D’Amato arrived at 7:35 p.m.

 

ABSENT:  Mark Crowley, Barbara Kinback.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, John Hansen.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary; Tom Potere, Zoning Officer.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-7-07 – KEVIN & JACQUELINE YOUNG – REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONVERT DECK TO SUNROOM LOCATED ON HEMINGWAY DR. BLOCK 8306, LOT 25 IN R1.8 ZONE

 

Discussion.  Ms. Robortaccio said the Board has received a letter from Mr. Young asking for a change in the dimension of the deck to make it 28’ x 16’ 4 ½ “.

 

Mr. Wiener stated he felt the change was so insignificant it could be handled as part of the resolution.

 

The Board members agreed.

 

In the matter of Kevin & Jacqueline Young

Case No. BA-07-09

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: March 12, 2007

Memorialized: April 9, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Kevin & Jacqueline Young have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring rear yard setback variance for premises located at 8 Hemingway Drive and known as Block 8306, Lot 25 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R1.8” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1605F5A of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to construct a three-season room onto part of the existing non-conforming deck.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 10/23/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicant’s existing deck is 28’x16’4 1/2”.  The proposed three season room would be 14’x16’ and would essentially occupy one half of the existing deck.
  5. It was noted by the applicant that no additional non-conformities are being created other than adding more mass and a structure onto the existing deck.
  6. It is unclear how the existing deck was built without benefit of a variance, but same was secured with a building permit.  It is noted that no notified property owners appeared to testify on the within application.
  7. The applicant submitted a plot plan showing the location of the proposed sunroom.  The applicant also provided some elevation drawings showing how same would be constructed.
  8. As presented, the applicant needed a variance for rear yard setback.  The minimum rear yard required is 25’ and the applicant’s proposal continues the existing 10’ setback to the deck, albeit; now including a sunroom.
  9. Subsequent to the public hearing, the applicant submitted the attached letter indicating a 4 ½ inch discrepancy.  The Board finds that a further 4 ½ inch relief to be de minimis and, if needed, is granted.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds the proposed relief to be de minimis under the circumstances.  The use of a three-season room will provide a reasonable amenity to the subject premises.  There will be no significant impact on the existing rear yard setback.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of March, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be sized, located, and constructed as depicted on the plot plan submitted with the application.  Same to be setback no less than 10’ as requested.

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Giardina seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-07-08 – DAVID DOYLE – VARIANCE FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON YELLOW BARN RD. BLOCK 11601,LOT 51 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of David M. Doyle & Barbara P. Doyle

Case No. BA-07-08

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: March 12, 2007

Memorialized: April 9, 2007

 

 

 

            WHEREAS, David M. Doyle & Barbara P. Doyle have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an accessory garage requiring dimensional variance(s) for premises located at 15 Yellow Barn Avenue and known as Block 11601, Lot 51 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8, 13-7.810.1B, 13-7.905C of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

            WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. William J. Lovas, Esquire represented the applicants.
  2. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  3. The applicant was proposing to construct a detached garage.  The applicants previously received approval to construct a single family home.  The garage was depicted on an architectural plan prepared by Michael Bengis, architect, dated 12/4/06.  The garage would be 14’8” high and 30’ wide by 37’ deep.  The location of the proposed garage was depicted on a plot plan prepared by Careaga Engineering.  Same would be approximately 35’ from the Yellow Barn Avenue right-of-way, 15’ off the northerly side yard, 13’ off the southerly side yard, and 51’ off the rear line.   The garage would be accessed via a driveway which was also depicted the Careaga plot plan. 
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 12/7/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The applicant’s proposal results in the need for the following variances:
    1. Impervious coverage – 25% is the maximum permitted, existing is 18.3% and the applicant’s proposal would result in 30.6%
    2. Total building coverage – 15% is the maximum permitted, existing is 10.7% and the applicant’s proposal would result in 17.3%
    3. Accessory structures are not permitted in the front yard - since this lot is bisected by Yellow Barn Avenue, the location of the garage is, therefore, in the front yard and needs a variance
    4. Accessory Building Size – the Zoning Ordinance limits accessory structures to a maximum of one half the size of the main structure – the main structure being 1,661 square feet and the proposed garage being 1,110 square feet, therefore, a variance is necessitated
  1. The applicant presented the following exhibits:
    1. A series of photographs marked A-1 through A-8 in evidence – the photographs depicted existing conditions on Yellow Barn Avenue as well as the location of the existing home
  1. The applicant testified and noted Yellow Barn Avenue is a private right-of-way.  It services approximately 11 or 12 properties.  Each of these properties, like the applicant’s property, is bisected by Yellow Barn Avenue.  All of the homes have located the principal structure or house on the lakeside of Yellow Barn Avenue.  Most of the homes have located an accessory garage on the far side of Yellow Barn Avenue.  The applicant further noted there was limited parking on Yellow Barn Avenue and that part of the application and the need for coverage variances was to create adequate off-street parking.  He noted these were lakefront homes and, as is typical with lakefront homeowners, many persons, such as the applicant, own boats, jet boats, recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, etc.  A larger garage would be a very affective structure within which to keep these types of vehicles and recreational watercraft indoors.

            WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds the applicant’s testimony to be competent and credible.  The existing pattern of development on Yellow Barn Avenue is consistent with the main structure being on the lakeside and the accessory structure on the opposite side of Yellow Barn Avenue.  This is an existing pattern of development and the applicant’s proposal is consistent with same.
  2. Part of the need for the coverage variance is that, while the lakeside functions as a road because it is a private street, it is “owned” by the applicant and thus, counts against the total impervious coverage required of the applicant.  To further compound the applicant’s problems, Yellow Barn Avenue is not wide enough to reasonably accommodate on-street parking without interfering with the right of access of adjoining properties.  The applicant’s proposed driveway and the proposed garage will promote and address a significant need for off-street parking.  Many lakefront homeowners have guests during the summer season, and as such, parking is at a premium. 
  3. While the size of the garage is certainly somewhat ambitious under the unique facts of the instant case, it is clearly reasonable for this type of lakefront home.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of March, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide plans for on-site drywell and/or other on-site stormwater management techniques for the garage building.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  2. It is clearly understood that there shall be no habitation or residential use of the garage.  It shall always be maintained as an accessory to the main residential use to of the premises.
  3. There shall be no sewer hookup in the garage.  Applicant may have plumbing and electricity, but same is clearly not to be used as auxiliary living space.
  4. The garage is solely to be used in conjunction with and for the benefit of the residence of the main structure.  There shall be no commercial use for storage within the garage.
  5. Garage is to be sized, located, and constructed as depicted on the drawings submitted with the application.

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-07-10 – CHRISTINE & TROY BEERS – SETBACK VARIANCE FOR INGROUND POOL, LOCATED ON MULBERRY CT. BLOCK 4401, LOT 56 IN R 2.5 ZONE

 

In the matter of Christine & Troy Beers

Case No. BA-07-10

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: March 12, 2007

Memorialized: April 9, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Christine & Troy Beers have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an in-ground swimming pool requiring a side yard setback variance for premises located at 7 Mulberry Court and known as Block 4401, Lot 56 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R2.5” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1201F11C of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool.  The proposed rear yard location results in only a 5’ side yard setback; 10’ is required and thus, a variance is needed.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 1/3/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The location of the proposed swimming pool was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
  5. The applicant’s property was depicted on plot plan attached to the application.  It is noted that there are only three sides to the applicant’s property which is somewhat pie shaped with a very irregular backyard due to the fact that the existing home is canted and not truly parallel to the front yard.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds there are several built-in hardships in dealing with the subject property - the topography of the property, the location of the existing infrastructure, and the shape of the property as somewhat unusual.  They certainly limit the area within which to construct a conforming swimming pool.
  2. The location of the proposed swimming pool will provide a reasonable backyard area and will be a positive benefit of the subject property and consistent with good planning concepts.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of  April, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Swimming pool to be sized (18’x36’) and located as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application.  Pool is to be no closer than 5’ – the common boundary is Lot 54 as depicted on the plot plan.
  2. Applicant shall comply with all building codes and health codes relating to the construction and maintenance of swimming pools.  No pool equipment shall be located within the 5’ setback area.  Same shall be no less than 10’ from the adjoining property.
  3. As noted, the only relief being sought by the applicant was for the location of the proposed swimming pool.  Applicant shall comply with all other provisions of the Roxbury Township Zoning Ordinance.

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Giardina seconded.

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Data, yes.

Mr. D’Amato arrived at 7:35 p.m.

BA-07-26 – DAVE BROWN/ADF COMPANIES – VARIANCE FOR SIGN FOR PIZZA HUT LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 6304, LOT 2 IN B-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of David Brown/ADF Companies

Case No. BA-07-26

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                                     Approved:  March 12, 2007

                                                                                                     Memorialized:   April 9, 2007

 

 

                WHEREAS, David Brown/ADF Companies have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain a sign variance so as to permit a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at 229 Route 10 and known as Block 6304, Lot 2 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.905B of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Martin Lieberman, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the operator of the Pizza Hut Restaurant located on Route 10.  
  3. As originally constructed, the restaurant had two signs.  There was one on the eastern cupola and one on the western cupola.
  4. The applicant testified that the Pizza Hut brand was in the midst of a major redesign and retrofitting of its existing distinctive building and replacing same with a more modern look.  The applicant presented photos A-1 in evidence together with a submission entitled “Pizza Hut Remodels” as part of the application package.
  5. After a discussion with the Board, the applicant agreed that the following would be the requested signs:
    1. An illuminated 39 square feet sign on the westerly cupola facing eastbound traffic on Route 10
    2. A logo sign on the front of the building facing Route 10 which would be 24 square feet; the existing freestanding sign would remain

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds the signage request to be reasonable and necessary.  The façade signs will provide notice to the motoring public of the location of the restaurant and encourage and promote vehicular safety.
  2. The size of the signs is compatible with signage along Route 10 and the re-adaptation of the restaurant will be an aesthetic upgrade over the older version. 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of March 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. All sign detail and illumination detail to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.  The westerly façade sign to be limited to 39 square feet in area; logo sign on the front/Route 10 façade limited to 24 square feet.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-7-07 – WOODMONT REALTY – SITE PLAN FOR WAREHOUSE/OFFICE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9603, LOTS 3 & 4 IN OB ZONE

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the reason this application is here tonight is for discussion on whether or not the Board will be hiring a traffic expert.  Mr. Hansen has submitted the names and resumes of three companies that we could engage to give us our own traffic consultation.  We can request this of the applicant.  It would come out of their escrow account.

 

Mr. Hansen said the three companies are all licensed professionals and have been in the business for some time.  In my opinion, I would recommend the Board hire a traffic consultant for this application.

 

A poll of the Board unanimously determined a traffic consultant will be hired. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked for Mr. Hansen’s input on the three firms.

 

Mr. Hansen stated they have all worked on the municipal side on applications.  Mr. Maltz has a lot of experience working with the DOT in this area, as does Gordon Meth.  John Desch has less experience in the area, but is certainly qualified.  He does more work down in the Wayne area.

 

Ms. Dargel stated she would prefer to have someone who is more familiar with the area. 

 

Mr. Kurtz said it seems that John Desch Associates has more experience with accident reports and that the other two have worked a lot with DOT.  A lot of times DOT doesn’t  seem to have the same concerns as the township.

 

Mr. Hansen said the consultants who have more experience with the people at DOT who serve this area are Harold Maltz and Gordon Meth.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if that would sway their opinions.

 

Mr. Hansen said he would be confident that these men would act professionally in representing their clients.

 

Ms. Dargel said I personally would want the facts, not someone who is slanted one way or another. 

 

Mr. Wiener said he is familiar with all three firms and that all three would give a competent unbiased report, without any preconceived agenda.

 

Mr. D’Amato stated given the credentials and the amount of training John Desch Associates has in accident investigation, etc., it gives him an advantage. 

 

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to hire John Desch Associates.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

A voice vote approved with Ms. Dargel abstaining.

 

The application was carried to 5/14/07 at 7:30 p.m.

 

BA-07 – CHARLES & MARTHA CUOMO – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON REGER RD. BLOCK 301, LOT 30 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Ms. Robortaccio said this applicant has returned with revised impervious calculations.

 

Mr. Wiener said since there was very little testimony at the last hearing, we should consider this the first hearing on this matter.  Only tonight’s testimony will be considered.

 

J. R. Frank was present.  He stated as requested, we have measured the existing area to determine the impervious coverage percentage.   There is 9% building coverage and 27.7% impervious coverage.  We are proposing to eliminate part of the driveway and the raised patio (make it a deck).  The existing shed will be relocated so that it meets the 5-foot setback requirements.  We are eliminating 128 sq. ft of walkway, 36 sq. ft of pavers and 268 sq. feet of paved driveway.  We are keeping the impervious coverage at 27.6% and the building coverage will be 11%.  We will also be putting in some drywell and seepage pits to handle the runoff. 

 

Mr. Frank referred to a colored rendering of sheet A-3 dated 9/4/06, received in the Planning Board office 3/19/07 (marked A-1).

 

Mr. Wiener stated the figures on exhibit A-1 are the figures that will be referenced in the resolution.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED


No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Giardina made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. D’Amato seconded, provided new drywells are installed and subject to the change in the proposed impervious coverage.  Part of the approval is that the site will be according to the plans and exhibits submitted.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-07-15 –TERRY & LISA CAVANAGH – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON SILVER SPRING DR. BLOCK 11601, LOT 15 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Ms. Robortaccio said we will be treating this application as though it were a new application as there wasn’t any discussion on the application at the last meeting.

 

Lisa Cavanagh stated she owns the property with her mother and father.  Her husband and she are going to relocate here and would like to renovate the current property and live there.  They are here for variances for impervious coverage, building coverage and lake setback.  There is no major significant change to the existing coverage.  They are reducing impervious coverage slightly. 

 

Alfred Stewart, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He referred to plans revised 1/5/07 consisting of two sheets.  Sheet 1 shows the existing conditions – there is a two story frame dwelling fronting on Silver Springs Drive and Lake Hopatcong.  We propose to add 160 sq. feet onto the dwelling on the southerly side to make it more aesthetically pleasing.  We are also adding a deck which will replace some steps and sidewalks.  On the drawing are the calculations for coverage.  Existing impervious coverage is 36.18% and proposed is 35.15 %.  The building coverage will be increased slightly.  Existing is 18% and we propose 19.36%.  The increase is minimal.  As to building height, we are proposing a 26 feet height.  We are requesting the impervious coverage variance and building coverage variance.  We also are requesting a variance for lake buffer.  The proposed is 44.9’, and the ordinance requires 50’ setback to the lake.  The deck is 10 feet wide.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Potere is in agreement with their figures that the deck will be 44.9 feet from the lake.

 

Mr. Potere stated he agrees with their figures.  To the edge of the water is 44.9’.

 

Mr. Stewart said the deck at the adjacent house to the north of us is at 43.3 feet from the  shoreline on Lot 11.  To the south, the adjacent dwelling is at 61.1’.  Our house is basically in line with that house, and this variance has no affect on the adjacent dwellings.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Stewart.

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant would follow the recommendations of the Lake Commission, if any.

 

Ms. Cavanagh said yes.

 

Mr. Stewart said we are not considered a major development under the stormwater regulations, therefore we do not fall under those regulations – as far as best management practices, we can review those with Mr. Kobylarz

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant understands this is a single family home based on the architectural plans submitted to the Board dated 3/12/07 prepared by Mr. Bias, the architect.

 

Ms. Cavanagh said they understand that.  That was always our intention.  We have no intention, nor do we want it to be a two family home.

 

Mr. Potere said I did a report and did a site inspection.  There is somewhat of a segregation of the two units now, but with the modifications that have been proposed, that would eliminate any question as to whether this is a single family home.  With the corrected plans, it should conform to the ordinance with an integrated living space.

 

Ms. Dargel said it still has two electric meters and heating units.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if this is a merged lot.

 

Mr. Potere said that is correct.  When the lots were merged, they kept both services. 

 

Ms. Terry Cavanagh said the old home had one bedroom, an all purpose room, a kitchen and a bathroom.  We needed a whole new box for the electric coming in.  The new addition was three times the size of the old home.  At that point in time, we went to he construction official, and he said everything we wanted to do was in code.  The only thing we had to do was to combine the lots. 

 

Mr. Data asked if there was any thought to eliminating one kitchen.

 

Ms. Terry Cavanagh said we wanted to keep the two kitchens as both my husband and daughter like to cook, and it is easier. 

 

Mr. Data asked if the two electric meters divide the house.

 

Ms. Cavanagh said both sides would run if the power went out. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked how many sewer hookups there are.

 

Ms. Cavanagh said one.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said a lot of this transpired before the town had the zoning permit process.

 

Don Dyrness, architect for the applicant, was sworn in. 

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if it is unusual to have two services going into a house.

 

Mr. Dyrness said it has happened before.

 

Mr. Potere said this was an older house, and it would have been a lot more money for them to have removed that service.  I can’t regulate the number of services there are in a house, as well as I can’t regulate the number of kitchens, as long as there is integrated living space within the home. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the issue before the Board is whether the living space is integrated, and the variances requested.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there is evidence of the deed restriction.

 

Ms. Terry Cavanagh  stated it was done.

 

Mr. Potere said there is a restriction in the deed, and if this is approved, the Board may want to put a condition in  the resolution that if there are any changes to the home in the future, they would have to return to the Board.

 

Mr. Dyrness referred to the architectural plan and stated after the last meeting, I met with Mr. Potere, and both basements are connected; on the first floor, there were two existing doorways at the top of the stairs.  Both of those doors will be removed and the openings will be widened on both sides.  On the second floor we are widening the proposed archway at the top of the stairs.  There will be no door there.  It is one integrated living space.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Pam James, 19 Silver Springs Drive, was sworn in. She said she is speaking on behalf of the Silver Springs Association.  We have no problem with the neighbors.  We would like to go on record that we are opposed to the approval to any zoning changes that would set precedent to allow a two family home in our community.  We see this is a one-family dwelling. 

 

Mr. Wiener said technically, the association should be represented by counsel.  You live next door.  Is that your own personal opinion as well?

 

Ms. James said yes.

 

Theresa Guarino, was sworn in.  She said she also has no problem with the plan.  We are glad to have them back in the neighborhood.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application with the revisions outlined in the 3/26/07 letter from Tom Potere; that it stays a one-family home; subject to the provisions of the Lake Commission; subject to the review of the Township Engineer; home to always remain a single family home.  The resolution should reflect that if there are any future changes to the home, it would have to return to the Board.  Mr. Giardina seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-07-25 – GARY & LISA DARLING – VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR SECOND FLOOR ADDITION LOCATED ON MAPLEDALE AVE., BLOCK 3704, LOT 29 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Gary & Lisa Darling were sworn in.

 

Ms. Darling stated we are looking to put a dormer addition on for two bedrooms and three closets.  We are asking for a sideyard setback, which is pre-existing on the bottom level.

 

Ms. Dargel said the drawings show a view from each of the side yards and the backyard.  I don’t have a drawing of the front view.

 

Ms. Darling said the front won’t change at all. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the drawings for the floor plans aren’t labeled.

 

Ms. Darling said the large one is the current first floor.  That is not changing at all.  The current second floor is labeled, and the third drawing is the new second floor.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the second story will be within the ordinance requirements for height.

 

Ms. Darling said it will.  It will be the same as the existing roofline of the house at 20’8”.

 

Ms. Dargel said the setback is existing and won’t change at all. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTON CLOSED

 

Mr. Data made a motion to approve the application.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-07-29 – DZAFER META – VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS FOR SECOND FLOOR ADDITION LOCATED ON COBB PLACE, BLOCK 11305, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Dzafer Meta was sworn in.  He stated he bought this small house, and he has three sons and would like to build a second floor with a one-foot overhang.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said a one foot overhang is shown. If there is a one-foot overhang, doesn’t that put him more into the setback?

 

Mr. Potere said that is correct.

 

Mr. Meta said he is asking for the one foot overhang.  He submitted a revised drawing showing the overhang (marked A-1).  It would go out one foot on all four sides.

 

Mr. Potere said the floor plan shows the one foot overhang. 

 

Mr. Wiener said the plans that will be approved, if the Board acts favorably, will be the plans marked A-1.  The architectural plan that will be approved is the alternate plan marked 15 feet on the bottom right. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the survey shows PVC piping running into a masonry wall.  The wall has eroded over time. That shoots out into the hill and down to the roadway.  Is that allowed?

 

Mr. Potere said it is not.

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant would be willing to modify the pipes so that they don’t go onto the roadway?

 

Mr. Meta said yes.  He will change it, subject to the Township Engineer’s determination.

 

Ms. Dargel said we also noticed different stair configurations on the plans.  Which one are you proposing?

 

Mr. Potere said the stairway would have to comply with BOCA codes.  It is a construction issue.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Wetzel made a motion to approve the application with the one-foot cantilever on all four sides; subject to Mr. Kobylarz reviewing the drainage.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes – this house is in disrepair and this will be an improvement; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes – this will be an improvement.

 

BA-07-27 - RUDY & LISA PETROCCO – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR A POOL LOCATED ON WEST MAPLE AVE., BLOCK 3801, LOT 53 IN R-4 ZONE

 

Rudy Petrocco was sworn in.  He stated he is asking for a variance for impervious coverage for an above ground pool.  This is a replacement for an existing pool.  This is the ideal location for the pool because of the sun exposure.

 

Mr. Dargel said the survey doesn’t show any dimensions for the pool and the setbacks.

 

Mr. Petrocco said the rear setback will be 13 feet, and 11 feet on one side and 8 feet off the garage. 

 

Ms. Dargel said there are pavers on the property that aren’t shown that would affect the coverage.

 

Mr. Petrocco said there are pavers (36” x 37’).  The pool diameter is 21’. 

 

Mr. Potere said with the pavers, the coverage would be 37.2%. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

David Stein, 3 West Maple Avenue, was sworn in. He said Mr. Petrocco is a very good neighbor and he has no objection to the proposal.

 

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application.  Ms. Dargel seconded. 

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-07-28 – JOHN FAY – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON EMMANS RD. BLOCK 4101, LOT 2 IN R-1 ZONE

 

John Fay, 278 Emmans Road, was sworn in.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said this property has three front yards.

 

Mr. Fay said we are here for a front yard setback variance on the Sheffinks Landing side of the property.  We are proposing to put in a garage and addition.  Sheffinks Landing is a dead end.  We are looking to add one two-story addition that would include a family room, part of a kitchen on the first floor with a master bedroom above, and one story addition  in the back for the remainder of the kitchen, a short entranceway, and a garage.   We are also proposing a covered patio.  The new addition would not contain any basement so the remainder of the house, where the existing kitchen is would become a playroom.  Regarding the garage, the property lines are not square.  As I go back, the setback line drifts in.  The garage would be located in such a way that it would allow a 15 foot setback from the septic system.  Moving the structure forward would not be good because the well is in the front.  This is the only viable spot to build the driveway and extension.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if everything will be connected into the existing house.

 

Mr. Fay said yes.  And, we would be removing the existing driveway onto Emmans Road, both entrances, and replace it with the one driveway.

 

Mr. Data said it is better to exit on the side street.

 

Mr. Potere stated they would have to get a road opening permit from the Engineering Department for the driveway.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application due to the fact that 3 front yards is unusual and the applicant is making the best use of the property; subject to a road opening permit required from the Engineering Department.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes ;Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

 

 

 

LETTER FROM MIKE KOBYLARZ IN REGARD TO CURBS AND SIDEWALKS ON MAIN ST. FOR THE SPATZ/VALENTINO APPLICATION

 

Ms. Robortaccio said in his letter, Mr. Kobylarz stated he feels the sidewalks and curbs are not necessary for this site.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to amend the resolution to not require the curbs and sidewalks as per Mr. Kobylarz’s recommendation.   Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

A voice vote unanimously approved.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 9:15 p.m.

 

 

                                                                        Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/